W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2009

Re: ISSUE-81 (resource vs representation)

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:27:11 -0700
Message-Id: <8C196D04-B4D4-4107-B78B-02D81D76A008@gbiv.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On Sep 28, 2009, at 10:48 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Roy T. Fielding  
> <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>> So?  I care about the distinctions because they are important
>> to server developers.  Either that matters to you or it doesn't.
>> If you logically combine the opinion of "doesn't matter" for
>> set X with "does matter" for set Y, then the result is "does matter"
>> for set X+Y.
>
> Well, no, not quite.  Mixing like that doesn't happen in the real
> world; there is no simple rule of contagion.

It is basic set theory.  No, the fact that it has "theory" in
the name does not mean it doesn't occur in the real world.

> The result is "matters
> to some of them, but maybe confuses the rest".  And when you compare
> the number of people it matters to, to the number of people that would
> be confused by it, you get a pretty clear answer.

Only if you completely make up both numbers, which I have no
interest in doing.  The numbers that we are writing for are the
people who have to read both the URI standard and the HTML standard
in order to implement the technology, versus those that only have
to read HTML.

> Using anything
> other than the common term is very likely a mistake.  The specific
> terms can still be used in a technical addendum or what have you, but
> it is *far* from a foregone conclusion that they should be used
> everywhere.

It is a foregone conclusion -- 4.75 years gone, in fact.

....Roy
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 21:27:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:49 GMT